Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home


Previous Contests

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discusswinners

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.
read/discusswinners

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discusswinners

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discusswinners

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Sreenath B N: on 3/13/11 at 4:06am UTC, wrote Dear Guilford Robinson, It is true that Einstein's equations agree with...

Vladimir Tamari: on 3/11/11 at 2:26am UTC, wrote Dear Guilford I second Peter's opinion of your paper. Your a priori...

Peter Jackson: on 3/10/11 at 8:51am UTC, wrote Guildford Thanks for your response in my string. I'm impressed by your...

Peter Jackson: on 3/5/11 at 16:41pm UTC, wrote Guilford I can't believe I'm the first posting! I was intruigued by your...

Guilford Robinson: on 2/14/11 at 15:09pm UTC, wrote Essay Abstract already sent Author Bio Already senr ...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Georgina Woodward: "BTW The neck scarves are a promotional souvenir given out at non sports..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Robert McEachern: ""At the risk of stroking physicists’ egos, physics is hard" But every..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

George Musser: "Imagine you could feed the data of the world into a computer and have it..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

Steve Dufourny: "Personally Joe me I see like that ,imagine that this infinite eternal..." in First Things First: The...

Steve Dufourny: "Joe it is wonderful this,so you are going to have a nobel prize in..." in First Things First: The...

Robert McEachern: ""I'm not sure that the 'thing as it is' is irrelevant." It is not. It is..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Steve Dufourny: "lol Zeeya it is well thought this algorythm selective when names are put in..." in Mass–Energy Equivalence...

Steve Dufourny: "is it just due to a problem when we utilise names of persons?" in Mass–Energy Equivalence...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.


FQXi FORUM
October 18, 2019

CATEGORY: Is Reality Digital or Analog? Essay Contest (2010-2011) [back]
TOPIC: A Digital Particle Structure For General Relativity by Guilford Robinson [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Guilford Robinson wrote on Feb. 14, 2011 @ 15:09 GMT
Essay Abstract

already sent

Author Bio

Already senr

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 5, 2011 @ 16:41 GMT
Guilford

I can't believe I'm the first posting! I was intruigued by your ideas, though I'm not a mathematician, you also seemed to have a good handle on the important conceptual elements.

I hope you may be interested in reading mine, with the odd conceptual parallel before a major divergence where I move to just logic and empiricism, but do get an extraordinary result, that needs some maths.

I hope you can read it, understand it, and comments.

best wishes

peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 10, 2011 @ 08:51 GMT
Guildford

Thanks for your response in my string. I'm impressed by your perception, where many initially struggle, combined with ability in maths I'll never possess, and by the conceptual similarities of our thesese. The most remarkable thing is how low yours is! so prepare for a boost.

One issue was undoubtedly the lack of Abstract here - it seems you should have bothered to send it again!

There are a number of other good consistent essays, including Klingman, Regaza, Parry, Castel, Tamari etc etc (see string) I think you should definately read and score Constantinos Regazas important one, as you have a handle on maths.

Very best of luck

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Mar. 11, 2011 @ 02:26 GMT
Dear Guilford

I second Peter's opinion of your paper. Your a priori hypothesis of a universal particle [p] that defines local density is very similar to my lattice node suggestion. You treat of it quantitatively using the Planck units whilst I mostly suggest my concepts qualitatively. I shall read your analysis carefully I am sure I will learn a thing or two from you!

With best wishes

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Sreenath B N wrote on Mar. 13, 2011 @ 04:06 GMT
Dear Guilford Robinson,

It is true that Einstein's equations agree with Newton's at low velocities but it is not true that QG and GR will reduce to each other.Because QG field is the basic field from which you can derive the GR (gravitational field) but not QG from GR.That is,you can reduce QG to GR but not the opposite.How this is done,you will find it in my article in the web-link that I have mentioned in my essay.In the QG field both QM and GR(in its distorted form) are combined.GR in its distorted form because in the QG field gravity varies exponentially;where as gravity (acceleration)remains uniform in GR.Thus GR is distorted in QG.So QG is the reality from which GR can be deduced.

Today I went thro' your article and surprised to see in your last para that my article started from where your article ended.Your endeavour to explain all fundamental concepts of physics from a single basic concept is really stonishing

Good luck and best regards.

Sreenath B N.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.